Subordinate Influence and the Performance Evaluation Process: Test of a Model

Ferris, Gerald R.; Judge, Timothy A.; Rowland, Kendrith M.; Fitzgibbons, Dale E.

doi:10.1006/obhd.1994.1030

Cited by 228 publications

(230 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

210

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Past research has shown that influence behavior affects selection outcomes (Baron, 1989;Beehr & Gilmore, 1982;Dipboye & Wiley, 1977;Gilmore & Ferris, 1989;Tullar, 1989). Subordinate influence behavior also has been found to affect performance ratings issued by supervisors (Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, 1991;Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988;Wayne & Ferris, 1990;Wayne & Kacmar, 1991). Moreover, the use of influence behavior in obtaining pay increases also has found general support (Bartol & Martin, 1988Dreher, Dougherty, & Whitely, 1988;Freedman, 1978;Gould & Penley, 1984;Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988;Martin, 1987).…”

Section: Past Research and Relevant Theory Past Research On Influencementioning

confidence: 97%

Political Influence Behavior and Career Success

Judge

Bretz

1994

Journal of Management

Self Cite

391

335

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recent review of the literature on politics and influence behavior in personnel/human resource management, noted that no studies had directly investigated the relationship between influence behavior and overall career success. In the present study the effect of political influence behavior on career success was investigated. Drawing from past research on influence behavior and relevant theory from social psychology, the effect of political influence behavior on career success was hypothesized to depend on the type of influence tactic employed. Support was found for the effect of political influence behavior in predicting career success, and for the differential effectiveness of influence behaviors. Implications of the results for the study of careers and career management processes are discussed . In a recent review of the literature on politics and influence behavior in personnel/human resource management, Ferris and Judge (1991) noted that no studies had directly investigated the relationship between influence behavior and overall career success. In the present study the effect of political influence behavior on career success was investigated. Drawing from past research on influence behavior and relevant theory from social psychology, the effect of political influence behavior on career success was hypothesized to depend on the type of influence tactic employed. Support was found for the effect of political influence behavior in predicting career success, and for the differential effectiveness of influence behaviors.Implications of the results for the study of careers and career management processes are discussed . 3Past research from the careers literature has identified a number of influences on career success. These influences broadly can be classified as individual or organizational in nature . Some of the more prominent organizational determinants of career success identified by past research include: socialization (Feldman, 1981;Louis, 1980;Reichers, 1987;Wanous, Reichers, & Malik, 1984), mentoring (Dreher & Ash, 1990;Hunt & Michael, 1983;Kram, 1983;Whitely, Dougherty, & Dreher, 1991), type of position (Whitely et al., 1991), early career challenge (Kaufman, 1974), and career systems (London & Stumpf, 1982). Similarly, a number of individual-level influences have been identified by past research, including cognitive ability (Dreher & Bretz, 1991), motivational variables such as hours worked (Whitely et al., 1991), human capital variables such as education, experience, and career interruptions (Hall & Hall, 1979;Mills, 1985;Pfeffer, 1977;Whitely et al., 1991), work/family variables such as spousal and familial demands (Cook, 1987;Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985), and demographic influences such as gender, marital status, and socioeconomic status (Dipboye, 1986;Dreher, Dougherty, & Whitely, 1985;Pfeffer, 1977;Powell, 1988).Although this research has contributed a great deal to understanding of career success (Howard & Bray, 1988), several authors have argued that past research has been limited by...

show abstract

Section: Past Research and Relevant Theory Past Research On Influencementioning

confidence: 97%

Political Influence Behavior and Career Success

Judge

Bretz

1994

Journal of Management

Self Cite

391

335

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Supervisor-focused impression management is ingratiatory and otherenhancement behavior directed toward one's supervisor, such as favor doing or providing compliments, that is intended to make one better liked. Job-focused impression management is behavior focused on self-promotion, such as alerting one's supervisor to one's accomplishments, that is intended to highlight job competence and performance (Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, 1994). While numerous studies have examined the differing effects of these two types of impression management behaviors on performance evaluation (e.g., Ferris et al, 1994;Kacmar, Delery, & Ferris, 1992;Wayne & Liden, 1995), comparatively little research has explored the factors affecting impression management, specifically, the link between impression motivation and perceived opportunity and impression management.…”

Section: The Impression Management Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Demographic dissimilarity and social network centrality are not only likely to constrain or facilitate impression management through their effects on perceived impression opportunity, but are also likely to dictate its influence on others. Past research has repeatedly shown supervisorfocused impression management to be positively, and jobfocused impression management negatively, related to performance evaluation (Ferris et al, 1994;Wayne & Ferris, 1990). The use of supervisor-focused behaviors enhances a supervisor's positive affect toward a subordinate, leading the supervisor to form a positive impression of the subordinate and make more favorable attributions about the subordinate's abilities and job performance (Wayne & Liden, 1995), but job-focused behaviors reduce the supervisor's positive affect toward the subordinate and may be interpreted as instances of inappropriate self-promotion (Ferris et al, 1994).…”

Section: Impression Management and Subsequent Performance Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motivation and Opportunity: The Role of Remote Work, Demographic Dissimilarity, and Social Network Centrality in Impression Management

Barsness

Diekmann

Seidel

2005

AMJ

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined relationships among remote work, demographic dissimilarity, social network centrality, and the use and effectiveness of impression management behaviors. In our findings, a higher proportion of time spent working remotely from supervisors increased the frequency of supervisor-and job-focused impression management, but reduced social network centrality decreased job-focused impression management. Social network centrality moderated the relationships between jobfocused impression management and both remote work and sex dissimilarity. Sex dissimilarity intensified a negative association between job-focused impression management and performance appraisal. Both sex dissimilarity and network centrality enhanced the positive association between supervisor-focused impression management and performance appraisal.Work arrangements in organizations are increasingly characterized by remote work, demographic diversity, and mobility. Creating and maintaining a positive workplace identity amidst this welter of new work arrangements may prove problematic. Increased remoteness from and demographic dissimilarity to other organization members, as well as changes in social network position attendant on these new arrangements, may diminish employees' organizational visibility, enhancing their extant baseline motivation to manage impressions. In addition, these factors may limit social interaction and interpersonal understanding, thereby reducing the perceived opportunity to manage impressions effectively. In this paper, we make explicit the link between remote work, demographic dissimilarity, social network centrality, and employees' motivation and perceived opportunity to manage impressions. We discuss the often-competing pressures between the motivation and perceived opportunity to manage impressions and empirically examine the relationship between these three situational influences and impression management. We also explore how demographic dissimilarity and social network centrality relate to the effectiveness of impression management by examining subsequent performance appraisal.Motivation and opportunity have both been widely acknowledged as critical determinants of individuals' impression management behavior (Jones & Pittman, 1982;Leary & Kowalski, 1990;Liden & Mitchell, 1988). While the importance of "impression motivation" has been explicated in the existing literature, the notion of "impression opportunity" has not been as clearly articulated, nor has its relationship to motivation been explicitly examined (see Jones & Pittman, 1982;Liden & Mitchell, 1988). Various elements of this notion of impression opportunity have been identified in previous models of impression management, including the perceived risks in engaging in impression management behaviors (Liden & Mitchell, 1988); the perceived probability of those behaviors being successful (Jones & Pittman, 1982;Liden & Mitchell, 1988); the appropriateness of those behaviors (Jones & Pittman, 1982); and the probable costs and benefits of those behaviors ...

show abstract

“…In particular, it is often associated with bragging and showing off (Hernez-Broome & McLaughlin, 2006). Furthermore, this literature suggests that engagement in self-promotion behaviour leads to lower performance evaluations (Ferris, Judge, Rowland, & Fitzgibbons, 1994;Wayne & Ferris, 1990). By contrast, our study highlights that workgroups and organizations may also benefit from a self-promotion climate as it makes public voice appear more legitimate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Public versus Private Voice

Isaakyan¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subordinate Influence and the Performance Evaluation Process: Test of a Model

Cited by 228 publications

References 0 publications

Political Influence Behavior and Career Success

Political Influence Behavior and Career Success

Motivation and Opportunity: The Role of Remote Work, Demographic Dissimilarity, and Social Network Centrality in Impression Management

Public versus Private Voice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About